CIBSE members should be taking a much more proactive stand on the nuclear issue, which threatens to deprive the sustainable building sector of funding for decades to come.

Some points that spring to mind are:

Geopolitical - why are we on the brink of war against Iran and North Korea to prevent them acquiring a technology that we are apparently happy for the French private sector (as we no longer have an indigenous nuclear construction industry of our own) to deploy across England (but not Scotland!)?

Security – ministers say the new power stations will be 9/11-proof, but if an Airbus A300 were flown into a reactor, would there really be no measurable radioactivity rise at the site boundary?

Security – the more fuel rods and waste in circulation, the greater the risk of a dirty bomb. Will the French firms involved be providing security for the whole supply and waste chain?

Reprocessing – will the new plants run on virgin or reprocessed fuel? If it’s to be virgin (because it’s cheaper), what is the point of reprocessing? In the absence of any plans for fast-breeders, what will happen to the plutonium waste? Will it, like the IRA’s arsenal, be put beyond use or will it be sold to the (French?) defence industry?

Waste – we don’t have safe storage for existing waste, so health, safety and environmental laws are more likely to be contravened.

Alternatives – CHP and energy conservation are a good start but not a long-term solution. Wind power was promoted by the Thatcher government precisely because it wasn’t a threat to the nuclear industry. Wave power has good potential, and we haven’t even begun to exploit small-scale hydro. Every pre-industrial village, town and city in the UK has a millstream – how much power could this resource provide? But, in my opinion, geothermal Rankin cycles are what we’ve been waiting for. This technology could be deployed by UK construction companies employing UK engineers.

The arguments in favour of nuclear power are disingenuous. The energy gap will appear in 2015, well before nuclear plants can be built, and 86% of oil and gas is used for transport, heating or industry, so nuclear can deliver only a 14% cut in UK global warming if it replaces ALL gas and oil used in power production. It won’t come near that. We could get a similar effect by phasing out the halocarbons in refrigerants and fire suppressants, which CIBSE should be campaigning for anyway.

Nicholas Cox, Earthcare Products, Ware, Herts

Source

Building Sustainable Design